ontolog-forum
[Top] [All Lists]

## Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth

 To: Ingvar Johansson Ontolog Forum Waclaw Kusnierczyk Mon, 07 May 2007 10:28:55 +0200 <463EE347.5010903@xxxxxxxxxxx>
 ``` Ingvar Johansson wrote: > Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb: >> Ingvar Johansson wrote: >>> Waclaw Kusnierczyk schrieb: >>>> My point is that logic is a theory, and thus it is, in principle, as >>>> good as any other theory, in that it may well be incorrect. >>> >>> I have once in this forum, in relation to statements like these, >>> urged people to read Thomas Nagel's "The Last Word". Unhappily, >>> Waclaw has not made it. So I guess I have to try to give a very >>> condensed presentation of Nagel's central argument against complete >>> skepticism. >> >> Unhappily (or not) I have joined this forum quite recently, and regret >> I haven't picked up your argument from the archives. >> >>> Compare the two propositions (a) <1+1=2> and (b) >> <1+1=2> is true>, and assume that some of your actions (e.g., as a >>> teacher in a primary school) depends on whether you act on (a) or >>> (b). Which one should you choose? I would choose (a), since as Nagel >>> says: "The thought itself dominates all thoughts about itself." When >>> considered seriously, the thought <1+1=2> *dominates* the thought >> doubt that <1+1=2> is true>. Or, with another formulation: >>> Action-relevant skepticism cannot be produced entirely *from the >>> outside*. But this is the way Waclaw and many others produce it. >>> >>> Here is the structure of the argument a second time; now applied to >>> an example that I think figured in this forum not too long ago. >>> >>> Compare the two propositions (a) >> will die> and (b) >> die> is true>, and assume that one of your actions depends on whether >>> you act on (a) or (b). Which one should you choose? I would choose >>> (a), since as Nagel says: "The thought itself dominates all thoughts >>> about itself." When considered seriously, the thought >> the 60th floor I will die> *dominates* the thought >> I jump from the 60th floor I will die> is true>. >> >> Fancy that: I compare > my feet and drink some beer> and > 60th floor I will land on my feet and drink some beer> is true>, and, >> following Nagel (according to you), I choose to jump (so I may never >> post here again, good for you, we'll see). >> >> I do not know what Nagel really meant; > > He is *not* saying that it is *always* the case that a thought dominates > thoughts about itself; as you seem to interpret my presentation of him. > Sometimes it does and sometimes, it doesn't. Everything depends on what > the thought happen to be *about*. In your example (but not in mine), the > thought in question does not dominate the thought that is about it. > >> for now, I have no other choice than to trust you. But perhaps what >> 'the thought itself dominates all thoughts about itself' means only >> that a thought about a thought can only follow that thought it is >> about *in time*, > No; see comment above. >> which in itself does not seem to propose or impose any serious >> criterion for choosing which thought to follow. Or maybe it means >> that our minds are made so that in critical situations when we need to >> make a quick decision, we follow simpler ('dominating') thoughts >> because they are easier to process without invoking complicated >> machinery of logical reflexive thinking. > No; see comment above. >> >> In the example you give, I could see your choice of (1) rather than >> (2) as analogous to a simple reflex vs a reaction mediated by higher >> levels of the central nervous system. And with this analogy, I could >> read Nagel's words as > Perhaps you could, but you shouldn't. >> a statement about how we are: we process (and react according to) >> thoughts before higher-order thoughts about the former. >> (Which is quite arguable.) >> >> In any case, I remain ignorant as to how your argument relates to my >> (possibly naive) earlier statements. > > Statements are *about* something. Some statments are about other > statements. Let me call them 'second order statements'. A second order > statement can (but need not necessarily) have an interesting relation to > what its first-order statement is about. Your view that "logic is a > theory, and thus it is, in principle, as good as any other theory, in > that it may well be incorrect" expresses in isolation only fallibilism > with respect to logic - and that's fine for me. But you seem to use it > to say that it is a mere convention whether or not a contradiction is > true or false. In my opinion, the thought < 'p and not-p' is false > > dominates (in Nagel's sense) the thought < I cannot firmly believe that > 'p and not-p' is false > .    (01) I am not saying that there is a mere convention whether or not contradiction is true or false. It may well be that there is no other way. The only thing I was saying (intentionally) was that I accept the view that it might be otherwise even though we can't imagine how this could be.    (02) We started from the existence of God, and I agree with you that, given the way we think we should think, God's existence is incoherent. We seem to disagree elsewhere.    (03) vQ    (04) > > Ingvar J > >> vQ >> >> >>> >>> best wishes, >>> Ingvar >>> >>> >> > >    (05) -- Wacek Kusnierczyk    (06) ------------------------------------------------------ Department of Information and Computer Science (IDI) Norwegian University of Science and Technology (NTNU) Sem Saelandsv. 7-9 7027 Trondheim Norway    (07) tel. 0047 73591875 fax 0047 73594466 ------------------------------------------------------    (08) _________________________________________________________________ Message Archives: http://ontolog.cim3.net/forum/ontolog-forum/ Subscribe/Config: http://ontolog.cim3.net/mailman/listinfo/ontolog-forum/ Unsubscribe: mailto:ontolog-forum-leave@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx Shared Files: http://ontolog.cim3.net/file/ Community Wiki: http://ontolog.cim3.net/wiki/ To Post: mailto:ontolog-forum@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx    (09) ```
 Current Thread Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, (continued) Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Patrick Durusau Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, paola . dimaio Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Patrick Durusau Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Message not availableRe: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk <= Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Christopher Menzel Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Ingvar Johansson Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Waclaw Kusnierczyk Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Patrick Durusau Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, John F. Sowa Re: [ontolog-forum] {Disarmed} Reality and Truth, Patrick Durusau